The impeachment veteran: Zoe Lofgren says Trump’s case...

1of4Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is the only lawmaker to play a role in the impeachments of Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Trump.Photo: Saul Loeb / Getty Images

2of4House Judiciary members Lofgren and John Conyers, D-Mich., after a vote on impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998.Photo: Joe Marquette / Associated Press 1998

3of4Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, questions legal experts during a House Judiciary Committee hearing about the constitutional standards for the impeachment of President Trump.Photo: Alyssa Schukar / New York Times

4of4Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, speaks to Ranking member Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment of US President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, December 4, 2019. - The next phase of impeachment begins December 4, 2019 in the US Congress as lawmakers weigh charges against Donald Trump, after the high-stakes inquiry into the president detailed "overwhelming" evidence of abuse of power and obstruction. Four constitutional scholars will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in the first of a series of hearings to establish the gravity of Trump's alleged crimes. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren likes to tell a joke around Capitol Hill these days: She would be 4-for-4 on impeachments — if only she hadn’t missed Andrew Johnson.

Lofgren, of course, wasn’t alive for Johnson’s impeachment over post-Civil War grievances in 1868. But she is the only member of Congress to play a role in all three modern inquiries, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton to Donald Trump.

That unique perspective has put Lofgren in the middle of the action as Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee hurtle toward a vote to impeach Trump, probably by Thursday evening.

Lofgren, a 71-year-old lawyer from San Jose, says her experience made her hesitant to rush to judgment. She was one of the last Democrats to support an impeachment inquiry, waiting until allegations emerged that Trump had pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Democrats that could help him politically.

While Lofgren’s colleagues, in both parties, have often struck a combative tone during the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, she has been measured and unemotional.

She’s been a clear juxtaposition to the California delegation’s more vocal members, such as Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin, a former prosecutor who is ubiquitous on cable TV news shows and trolls Trump on social media.

Lofgren doesn’t thrive on television appearances, and when she does go before the cameras, her comments are lawyerly and peppered with historical context. She tweets about impeachment infrequently and with a restrained tone.

She began her remarks at the Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4 by sharing a copy of the 1974 House report from the inquiry into Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Then, Lofgren implored lawmakers to keep a deliberative spirit.

“I would just like you to know that this is not a proceeding that I look forward to,” she told colleagues. “It is not an occasion for joy. It’s more of a solemn obligation.”

That 1974 report marked the start of Lofgren’s foray into impeachment politics.

Impeachment Inquiry

She was a 26-year-old law student at Santa Clara University when she came come to Washington, D.C., to work as an aide to former Rep. Don Edwards, a Democrat. She was supposed to research bankruptcy issues, but quickly was enlisted in the Nixon impeachment fight.

“Everybody kind of got caught up in the whirlwind,” Lofgren told The Chronicle during an interview in her spare office in the Capitol basement. “I was just a law student. I wasn’t in charge of anything.”

Edwards was a member of the Judiciary Committee, and Lofgren helped draft an article of impeachment over Nixon’s authorization of the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969-70. The committee didn’t adopt that article, but it did approve three others in summer 1974 related to Nixon’s involvement in the cover-up of illegal actions by his administration and re-election campaign that targeted Democrats. Within days, Nixon resigned before the House could impeach him.

Two decades later, Lofgren won election to the South Bay congressional seat held by Edwards, who had announced his retirement. She was soon appointed to the Judiciary Committee and another impeachment fight followed — this one against Clinton, for lying about his affair with a White House intern.

“This is a sad day in our nation’s history,” Lofgren said as she voted against impeachment in the Judiciary Committee in 1998. Her argument anticipated how she would contrast Clinton’s behavior with Trump’s conduct in the Ukrainian affair more than 20 years later: Clinton behaved “badly and irresponsibly,” Lofgren said, but his conduct didn’t threaten the constitutional balance of power.

Katie Merrill, a Democratic political strategist in Berkeley, became familiar with Lofgren’s deliberative style during that impeachment inquiry. Merrill was working as chief of staff to Rep. Ellen Tauscher, another Bay Area Democrat, and said she grew to admire Lofgren’s restrained, dutiful approach to a topic that polarized America.

She said Lofgren has adopted the same tone in the Trump inquiry.

“The attitude that Zoe Lofgren has taken should be a model for every member on both sides of the aisle,” Merrill said. “It’s not about shrill commentary on cable news and lighting your hair on fire.”

Lofgren’s colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have also praised her demeanor. Behind the scenes, she’s known to mentor freshman lawmakers and offer advice as they navigate impeachment.

“If there is an impeachment vote and it does go to the Senate, I would have a lot more confidence if Zoe is one of the impeachment managers,” said Rep. Greg Stanton, a first-term Democrat on the committee who represents a battleground district in Phoenix. “I really respect her.”

During the months-long buildup to the Trump inquiry, when the focus was on whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had conspired with Russia to interfere in the presidential election, Lofgren repeatedly cautioned Democrats about moving too hastily or for partisan reasons.

But, like many moderate Democratic lawmakers, Lofgren’s hesitancy about an impeachment inquiry dissipated after Trump’s conduct involving Ukraine came to light. She says it’s more troubling than what Nixon did.

“To the extent that it involves foreigners interfering in our election, it’s even worse,” Lofgren said. “It was a domestic burglary in the case of Nixon, not other countries.”

Beyond the factual allegations against Trump, Lofgren said, the president’s refusal to allow witness testimony or release documents to House impeachment investigators poses an unprecedented threat to America’s constitutional order.

Because of that, Lofgren said, the country cannot afford to wait months for the courts to force the White House to comply with House subpoenas in the Ukraine affair.

“I’ve made it clear throughout this investigation that I didn’t want to be part of a third impeachment inquiry,” Lofgren told the Judiciary Committee on Monday, as Democrats were drafting articles of impeachment.

“But the direct evidence is very damning,” she said. “We need to proceed.”

Dustin Gardiner is a state Capitol reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle. He joined The Chronicle in 2019, after nearly a decade with The Arizona Republic, where he covered state and city politics. Dustin won several awards for his reporting in Arizona, including the 2019 John Kolbe Politics Reporting award, and the 2017 Story of the Year award from the Arizona Newspapers Association. Outside of work, he enjoys hiking, camping, reading fiction and playing Settlers of Catan. He's a member of NLGJA, the association of LGBTQ journalists.